August 9, 2009  The Waxman Bill explicitly states that it will reduce the emissions from "capped sources" by 83% in 2050. EPA says, by only 29%. Waxman counts foreign offsets, which no one caps. Even counting these, emissions in 2050 will be double what Waxman claims.  See the full graph.

August 8, 2009  The Waxman Bill explicitly states that it will reduce the emissions from "capped sources" by 83% in 2050. EPA says, by only 29%. Waxman counts foreign offsets, which no one caps. Even counting these, emissions in 2050 will be double what Waxman claims.  See the full graph.

August 7, 2009.  For good reasons, developing countries reject caps. The obvious alternative—which does not offend as caps do—is a carbon tax. But Environmental Defense (EDF) opposes this, so the U.S. never tried it. With Bush pushing only voluntary actions, the 2007 Bali climate summit invented Nationally Appropriate Miti... more >>

August 6, 2009. "Joe — he’s an insanely great economist." So says Krugman. But Joe Stiglitz says Krugman's dead wrong about cap and trade being great for international agreement. Now Joe's been proven right. Time to rethink. >>

August 5, 2009 For the first 25 years the Waxman bill spends more on foreign than on domestic emission reductions. But on domestically, the main effect is on electricity. The graph shows the four main factors wind, nuclear, conservation, biomass. Not in that order ... See the full graph.

August 5, 2009 In EIA's Aug. 4 report on the Waxman bill, the Dept. of Energy finds that the bill's cap induces more than enough renewable electricity to meet the RES. "The share of renewable generation far exceeds that required to comply with the combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard in all of the ACESA cases." (p.23-24)

July 9, 2009  At the Major Economies Forum (MEF) in Italy, the top 17 polluting nations decided they cannot even set an "aspirational goal" for the world for 2050. This reflects the more serious problem that China and India will not accept any cap on their own emissions until at least 2020.

The G8 summit, one day before the MEF, declared "We recognise the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature ought not to exceed 2°C." It's hard to imagine how they could have said anything weaker. (AFP)

A day later the MEF Leaders vowed "to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions" by 2050. Well there you go; it is possible to say even less.

But, as I explain in Carbonomics, effective caps ask developing countries to cap their per-capita emissions at 5 or 10 times less than our own. That's insulting. So it's time to re-think caps. The world should have a target for 2020 and for 2050, but developing countries should be asked to commit to a carbon tax not a cap. This asks them for equal effort relative to their emissions level. Since they emit 10 times less, the same tax would charge them 10 times less.

May 31, 2009.   According to the EPA, foreign offsets will account for most of the cost of the Waxman-Markey bill. This might be acceptable, if they were a net positive. They will appear to reduce emissions, but because they act as an inducement for developing nations not to agree to any binding commitment, their impact will be decidedly negative.

The EPA predicts (April 20 analysis) that foreign offsets will be bought up to their one-billion-ton limit right from the start. This provides emitters with more than enough carbon credit, so they will bank allowances. Accumulated credits, and the continuing offset purchases mean that U.S. emissions will be reduced by only 23% (not 83% as claimed) in 2050. The latest version of Waxman's "ACES" allows 1.5 billion tons of offsets, which EPA says will increase their use, but no estimate is yet available.

With increased offsets, and comparing reductions to 1990, the Kyoto's benchmark date, it looks like domestic emission reductions will come to only 7% in 2050. That's exactly the reduction assigned to us for 2010 by the original Kyoto protocol.

China and India have nixed caps. Without these caps, Kyoto fails. What can be done?

Carbonomics explains "wrecking" the economy, "peak oil," caps, carbon taxes, and Kyoto.